Start the debate on how to restore progressive politics

Jon Cruddas is right (Labour has misunderstood Britain, 18 March): we urgently need a public debate to try to get democratic mainstream support behind a new progressive consensus as an alternative to the prevailing Tory-New Labour orthodoxy. I would propose three central strands. It should seek to restore a social democracy which has been ripped apart by greed and an out-of-control inequality epitomised by the banks' bonus culture. We need a solidarity tax levied on the top 5% of incomes and on the so-called non-domiciled super-rich - who use Britain but don't pay into it - with the proceeds hypothecated to end child and pensioner poverty.

We need to redraw the boundaries between the state and the market. The market fundamentalism of the last 30 years is well and truly busted. But ending privatisation, deregulation and PFI is not enough. We need a new perspective for the state, not - as now - passive facilitator and rescuer of last resort, but actively interventionist where the public interest requires it, and strong promoter of the key social values of accountability, equity and real equality of opportunity. A robust market has an essential role, but so does the state, not only in health and education (where private markets do not belong), but in energy (a key to national security), housing (neglect of which is the biggest repository of social misery), transport (for a fully co-ordinated system), and banking (to prevent another collapse and provide reliable housing for low-income households).

We need a state which is less an intrusive snooper and more the guardian of our civil liberties. And we need a major redistribution of power: away from a top-down state to disenfranchised citizens; away from top-down industrial relations to a fair and constructive role for trade unions: and away from a top-down politics to a much more genuinely participative system of governing.Michael Meacher MPLab, Oldham West and Royton

David Blunkett can't understand the lack of enthusiasm in the public sector for a Labour government (Comment, 26 March). I'll try to help. Labour inherited and amplified the Tory contempt for the public sector: useless, untrustworthy people needing constant micro-management - unlike, say, bankers, whose inherent skill and probity would only be damaged by political interference.

This ideological disdain was spun: news of an underperforming school was loudly used to justify more management; good news such as our schools' good results in international comparisons was buried. The ideal is to privatise as much as possible - so trust schools are promoted with dodgy statistics. Yes, Labour was prepared to invest, and target results reflect this. But knowing a Tory government might have been worse does not make one warm to Labour. We need a break from the "private, good; public, bad" ideology of the last 30 years.Michael HurdleWoking, Surrey